miked10270 0 #26 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuote... I pay $0 for doctor visits & $0 for prescriptions. $0 for hosptial visits. $0 for operations. $0 for CT & MRI Scans. Etc... And... Given that my present condition is perhaps chronic, I DON'T have to worry about my "Medical Insurance" NOT BEING RENEWED!!! I only have to worry about getting better. Not whether I can afford treatment or medication I need! Not whether my insurance company will continue to make a loss on me year after year! Like I said, being ill is a singularly crap time to have to worry about money! And how much of your current tax burden goes to pay for that? Britain spends less than half per person on health care compared to The US system. In effect, my "tax-Burden" is around 40% of what you'll pay for medical insurance at a typical US level of cover.Incidentally, I don't know if you're aware that you can also buy private health insurance in the UK. That sort of thing allows you to effectively "jump a NHS queue" for minor, elective stuff. Private health insurance is actually dirt cheap in The UK, since it's generally designed to supplement the Socialised Healthcare program rather than completely replace it. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #27 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteWritten by a Brit...geez. US healthcare is the best on the planet. The costs are high, but it works. Do you REALLY think that US Health care gives good value? No, I didn't say that. Please re-read what I said. I said best in quality, not "cost". In fact, I said it was expensive too. QuoteEVERY socialised medical program in the world runs it's equivalent service at less cost per capita than the US - half or less is commonly quoted. That may be true, but the quality of care, and the waiting that some must endure for certain care is pretty lame. Cost wise, they run a cheap shop, but quality wise, it's lacking. If it weren't, a "shining example" of socialized medicine, Canada, wouldn't be considering a massive overhaul, pretty much eliminating the "free" ride per se. QuotePS: Personal Example. Some years ago I broke my ankle skydiving! I later got the treatment I received (at ZERO direct cost) valued by a relevant friend in The US. It came out at $100,000+. What did concern me was that a fair proportion of it (like the 3 ops over 2 years to remove the pins & stuff put in at the first op & the resulting returns to physio) simply wouldn't have been covered by any american insurer! There'd have been enough of a lottery getting most US Health Insurers to pay out on the fact it was a skydiving injury in the first place! You don't know what would or would not be covered. It's 31+ flavors over here. There are plenty of policy writers out there that have health plans that provide for competent, complete orthopedic care. I'm not going to blow sunshine around where I know there are obvious "flaws" to our system. However, if an individual looks carefully, they can find reliable, and reasonable coverage which, in some cases, can be tailored to their lifestyle. Again, it's not perfect, but it's not impossible to find. Sh*t in this country requires hard work, always has, always will. I discourage anyone from falling into the idea that stuff should be handed to them. The sense of entitlement is disturbing.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #28 May 3, 2006 ...best in quality, not "cost". In fact, I said it was expensive too. If a significant segment of the population can't access the health care because it is driven by finances rather that patient need, then that system can't be "the best". It may be the most technically advanced, the shiniest, but if you can't afford it then it's completely useless. Take a motoring analogy. Suppose Rolls Royce were the only car makers. Their cars are beautiful, luxurious, etc... Arguably "The Best". But at $300K you can't afford one, no matter how much you may need to drive for whatever reason, so you're not gonna drive! The most that you can afford is one of the seats to carry around for when Y'All get tired walking. Or maybe a couple of wheels & an axle to help you push heavy shopping home. Same with health care. If you can't access this "superb" health care, then it's actually worse than useless to you! ... Cost wise, they run a cheap shop, but quality wise, it's lacking... Look at the various "horror stories" about The NHS & Canada's system in proportion. The main reason they make the news is because they're unusual. The overwhelming majority of folk get treated quickly & without fuss. Notice that most of the stories are "outrage" that the system is less than perfect. I wonder how many stories of "Medical Insurer refuses to pay for treatment! Cancels cover for chronic sufferer!" are out there? ...don't know what would or would not be covered. It's 31+ flavors over here.... Yeah... ANd very few of them would cover repeated skydiving without a BIG premium hike! It's classed as a "Dangerous Sport". What (I'm assured) WOULDN'T be covered by any insurer is me saying to my Orthopaedic Consultant "How about taking these pins & stuff out. I'm a bit worried about doing my ankle again on a skydive with these pins & stuff in." and him saying "Sure. We'll take half of the stuff out now, and the rest in about 6 months. You'll need 2 hospital stays & post-op with physio after each of these ops that aren't strictly necessary but may be a good idea. Let's do it. You'll have to wait 6 weeks for the first op." (Damn waiting lists). ...falling into the idea that stuff should be handed to them. The sense of entitlement is disturbing. It's not about automatic entitlement, it's about whether a person should receive medical care & treatment according to their wealth or their need. If you believe that treatment is for those who can afford it is the proper course, then your system is great. If you believe that treatment is for those who need it, then Socialised Medicine is the superior system. Incidentally, if you happen to value your time, want to schedule appointments for treatment, or want to skip waiting lists for elective stuff, then you can get private health insurance in the UK (And I believe Canada). As I said in a previous post, this insurance is dirt cheap here since it's tailored to supplement the Socialised medicine rather than supplant it. Once again, I suspect this is a cultural thing with each side of "The Pond" being happiest with what they're most familiar with. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #29 May 3, 2006 Quoteand...? your graph doesn't support the claims you made earlier. The US is mediocre, not trailing badly, in the first world on this metric. And well ahead of the developing world. As stated elsewhere, we don't live healthy lives. Too many crack babies. (If you compared just the whites of the US to the predominantly white European countries, you'd see the same numbers) Too many people living not very healthy lives and not seeing the doctor. Too many teenage pregnancies. Again, the fault of the people, not of the medical system. When a friend went into labor at 7 months, I was quite happy that she had our medical system to take care of her. Not my graph, it came from US DHHS, and it showed exactly what I said, the US trails western Europe badly and compares favorably only with third world countries. Interesting that you blame the people and not the system they support (thanks to AMA brainwashing, which is apparently very successful). Interesting that you don't count blacks as Americans. We have an overpriced, underperforming healthcare system that is designed for the good of the medical establishment and not for the good of the people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #30 May 3, 2006 Quote[A scientific study doesn't really agree with your non-scientific rant. OMG! A scientific study can't be wrong, can it? Gimme a break. Lemmings! I'm not saying it is wrong -- in fact I believe it most likely accurate. But I can't help but chuckle as remember all the "scientific" studies over the years that promoted everything from low fat, low carbs, eat nuts & oatmel and you'll live longer, blah, blah, blah). steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 May 3, 2006 QuoteOMG! A scientific study can't be wrong, can it? Gimme a break. Lemmings! Sure it can, though in this case I'll take it over the ranting of one poster here. As in any study, the old addage of "follow the money" holds true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #32 May 3, 2006 I didn't take Josh's reply as a rant. I guess I thought he was given his opinion or best guess at what may cause the difference. Lord knows he's right about what he said. Have you ever seen the people shopping at Walmart (you can't share an aisle with many of them) or eating in an "all you can eat" buffet? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #33 May 3, 2006 >you don't see those with means going off to Canada for healthcare . . . I do see people of means going to Sweden for orthopedic surgery because of their reputation. And we are already seeing people leave the US for stem cell treatments, even though they're in very early stages of trials. I suspect this will expand greatly over the next few years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #34 May 3, 2006 >But I can't help but chuckle as remember all the "scientific" >studies over the years that promoted everything from low fat, low >carbs, eat nuts & oatmel and you'll live longer, blah, blah, blah Yep. Smoking causes cancer, airbags can save your life, drinking too much hurts your liver - buncha idiots is what they are! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #35 May 3, 2006 > US health care is excellent. The problem is that people over-eat, under exercise, drink too much, smoke too much. Another problem, and the reason that so much money is spent per capita in the US, is the amount of medical malpractice insurance. Another problem is that more and more people use the ER as primary care, so that they dont have to take time off of work to go to the doctor. The ER is a lot more expensive than going to an office visit. ANd then to top it off, the high cost of drugs. But, that isnt all the reasons, just a few. Bottom line is that US health care doesnt suck. All them there folks coming over the border from the south, OK maybe the North as well ending up in US ER rooms might be another reason health care is expensive. OOPS, I'm sorry, I take it back, forgot they get their health care for free, therefore it can't be a reason health care is so expensive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #36 May 3, 2006 QuoteI do see people of means going to Sweden for orthopedic surgery because of their reputation. And we are already seeing people leave the US for stem cell treatments, even though they're in very early stages of trials. I suspect this will expand greatly over the next few years. PLus hip replacement and other surgery and treatment in places like Thailand and India. State of the art hospitals, highly trained physicians at a fraction of the cost. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #37 May 3, 2006 Bill, I didn't say scientist were idiots. I chuckle because if someone says it is scientific they accept it without questions. I chuckle when religous people do the same. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #38 May 3, 2006 QuoteI chuckle because if someone says it is scientific they accept it without questions. I chuckle when people make assumptions..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #39 May 3, 2006 >I chuckle because if someone says it is scientific they accept it without questions. In most cases, it is not the science that's the problem - it's the unfounded assumptions people make based on the science. For example, rats and mice live 30% longer when you restrict their caloric input. The study that determined that was a pretty solid one, and their results have been replicated several times. There's not much doubt that when you feed rats a lower calorie diet they live longer; that's the science, and it's supported pretty well. But then I hear people saying "Stupid scientists! What, they think a life of starvation is really worth living even if it gives you another few years? Typical ivory tower liberals." Two misunderstandings in statements like that: 1) that it works on humans too (which hasn't been shown) and 2) that scientists think a longer life is 'worth it' (they made no value judgements.) It's just an interesting study that suggests further avenues of research. Similarly, there is good scientific evidence that smoking makes lung cancer more likely, and that fiber reduces the odds of people getting colon cancer. Now, that does NOT mean that people who don't smoke won't get lung cancer, and it does not mean that people who eat lots of fiber won't get colon cancer. Nor does the case of "the guy who smokes two packs a day and lives to 100" invalidate that research. But if you want to increase the odds of not getting cancer early, those two bits of info are very good to know. Does that mean that I "accept it without question?" In a way, yes. I'm not going to start smoking to see if I get lung cancer, because I've seen enough of the studies to know that that's a silly risk to take. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #40 May 3, 2006 Quote Not my graph, it came from US DHHS, and it showed exactly what I said, the US trails western Europe badly and compares favorably only with third world countries. It's a politically motivated graph that implies the US is dead last, and makes no indication of how bad bad really is. Like China at 25, India at 58, and last place Angola at 192. The US in the high 6s is nothing to crow about, but still ranks it on the nice part of the bell curve. World average is around 80. "Comparing statistics for IMR across countries can be a useful indicator of their level of health and development, but the method for calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." Quote Interesting that you blame the people and not the system they support (thanks to AMA brainwashing, which is apparently very successful). Interesting that you don't count blacks as Americans. Quote interesting strawmen there. And sorry, you can't dismiss away the problems of drug abuse in pregnant mothers. Not if you're going to make a big noise over 6 in 1000 versus 4 in 1000. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steveorino 7 #41 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteI chuckle because if someone says it is scientific they accept it without questions. I chuckle when people make assumptions..... I chuckle when other people chuckle. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #42 May 3, 2006 Quote For example, rats and mice live 30% longer when you restrict their caloric input. The study that determined that was a pretty solid one, and their results have been replicated several times. There's not much doubt that when you feed rats a lower calorie diet they live longer; that's the science, and it's supported pretty well. But then I hear people saying "Stupid scientists! What, they think a life of starvation is really worth living even if it gives you another few years? Typical ivory tower liberals." Two misunderstandings in statements like that: 1) that it works on humans too (which hasn't been shown) Is there doubt on it? Aside from the small scale testing in rodents, it stands to reason. Processing less food and expending less energy (and presumably being fairly lean) puts less wear on the body. But personally, I don't see the advantages. And most skydivers have accepted the axim that good life now is more valuable than any life way into the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jerryzflies 0 #43 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuote Not my graph, it came from US DHHS, and it showed exactly what I said, the US trails western Europe badly and compares favorably only with third world countries. It's a politically motivated graph that implies the US is dead last, and makes no indication of how bad bad really is. Like China at 25, India at 58, and last place Angola at 192. The US in the high 6s is nothing to crow about, but still ranks it on the nice part of the bell curve. World average is around 80. "Comparing statistics for IMR across countries can be a useful indicator of their level of health and development, but the method for calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." Quote Interesting that you blame the people and not the system they support (thanks to AMA brainwashing, which is apparently very successful). Interesting that you don't count blacks as Americans. Quote interesting strawmen there. And sorry, you can't dismiss away the problems of drug abuse in pregnant mothers. Not if you're going to make a big noise over 6 in 1000 versus 4 in 1000. 6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. So you think it OK that the US has 50% worse infant mortality than other western countries, and that it indicates that our system is just fine?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #44 May 3, 2006 >Is there doubt on it? Well, yes. It likely has a similar effect on humans, but our metabolism is not the same as a rat's. It is likely for two reasons: 1. A lot of americans are currently eating themselves to death; restricting them to, say, 1000 calories a day will result in healthier americans just from an obesity standpoint. 2. Reducing metabolic rates reduces some of the wear (telomere erosion, for example) that accumulates over time. But again, that's likely, not proven. And it may not be valid on healthy people who already eat less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 May 3, 2006 Quote 6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. So you think it OK that the US has 50% worse infant mortality than other western countries, and that it indicates that our system is just fine? sheesh - read and comment, will ya? I said that the differences are less than claimed, and that there are issues in America that are not endemic to our method of health care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #46 May 3, 2006 Quote6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. wrong - with a sample size of only 1000, you can't say that 6 and 4 are meaningfullly different considering normal variation. Hint - to say they are meaningfully different, the confidence interval of the difference can't contain zero. This means that if you took another 1000 samples, the results might be reversed, the same, or even 4 vs 6 again, or otherwise..... "Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 4 1000 0.004000 2 6 1000 0.006000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: -0.002 95% CI for difference: (-0.00818181, 0.00418181) Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -0.63 P-Value = 0.526" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #47 May 4, 2006 QuoteQuote6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. wrong - with a sample size of only 1000, you can't say that 6 and 4 are meaningfullly different considering normal variation. Hint - to say they are meaningfully different, the confidence interval of the difference can't contain zero. This means that if you took another 1000 samples, the results might be reversed, the same, or even 4 vs 6 again, or otherwise..... "Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 4 1000 0.004000 2 6 1000 0.006000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: -0.002 95% CI for difference: (-0.00818181, 0.00418181) Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -0.63 P-Value = 0.526" Umm - the sample size is millions of births. The 4 or 6 in 1000 is the RATE of infant mortality. Your abject groveling apology will be accepted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #48 May 4, 2006 QuoteQuote 6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. So you think it OK that the US has 50% worse infant mortality than other western countries, and that it indicates that our system is just fine? sheesh - read and comment, will ya? I said that the differences are less than claimed, and that there are issues in America that are not endemic to our method of health care. I think 50% higher death rate is a big difference. I also said the US only looks good by comparison with 3rd world countries. So which western nation looks worse than the US? Even Cuba is better than the US. My claim is accurate, infant mortality in the US is shameful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #49 May 4, 2006 Quote[ I think 50% higher death rate is a big difference. I also said the US only looks good by comparison with 3rd world countries. So which western nation looks worse than the US? Even Cuba is better than the US. My claim is accurate, infant mortality in the US is shameful. I'll repeat: "Comparing statistics for IMR across countries can be a useful indicator of their level of health and development, but the method for calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." I believe there is still a gap between the US and the best, but it's still in the front pack, and the differences are not about the health care system. If this were a race, the country is in the front pack, just at the back. It's performance is still better than one tenth the global average. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #50 May 4, 2006 I think it's clear that there are problems with our system in the US. To turn a blind eye to the fact that there are problems isn't smart if we want to fix what IS broken. But I don't think there's a single easy answer.... There's definitely a problem with access to health care. Cost is definitely part of the issue, but it's not the whole problem. Infant mortality. I honestly believe that this is much more a social issue than medical, for a number of reasons. If you look at our impoverished areas, you'll find very unhealthy conditions and people who are distrustful of the health care establishment, and only access it when absolutely necessary, and sometimes not then. Children who live in poverty do have access through Medicaid, which is better in some states than others. Infant mortality, as well as morbidity/mortality of the general population, is much higher in this subset of society than in more affluent groups. Lack of access due to the cost of healthcare tends to affect the people who work hard, but don't earn enough money to afford insurance or who work in jobs that don't offer health insurance as a benefit. These are people who often desire quality medical care but are unable to pay out of pocket. They'll usually pay for doctor visits, but then can't afford medications that would save them more serious health problems down the road. In this group, children still (at least in Arkansas) do have pretty good access through social programs that provide insurance to them. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
steveorino 7 #41 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuoteI chuckle because if someone says it is scientific they accept it without questions. I chuckle when people make assumptions..... I chuckle when other people chuckle. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #42 May 3, 2006 Quote For example, rats and mice live 30% longer when you restrict their caloric input. The study that determined that was a pretty solid one, and their results have been replicated several times. There's not much doubt that when you feed rats a lower calorie diet they live longer; that's the science, and it's supported pretty well. But then I hear people saying "Stupid scientists! What, they think a life of starvation is really worth living even if it gives you another few years? Typical ivory tower liberals." Two misunderstandings in statements like that: 1) that it works on humans too (which hasn't been shown) Is there doubt on it? Aside from the small scale testing in rodents, it stands to reason. Processing less food and expending less energy (and presumably being fairly lean) puts less wear on the body. But personally, I don't see the advantages. And most skydivers have accepted the axim that good life now is more valuable than any life way into the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #43 May 3, 2006 QuoteQuote Not my graph, it came from US DHHS, and it showed exactly what I said, the US trails western Europe badly and compares favorably only with third world countries. It's a politically motivated graph that implies the US is dead last, and makes no indication of how bad bad really is. Like China at 25, India at 58, and last place Angola at 192. The US in the high 6s is nothing to crow about, but still ranks it on the nice part of the bell curve. World average is around 80. "Comparing statistics for IMR across countries can be a useful indicator of their level of health and development, but the method for calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." Quote Interesting that you blame the people and not the system they support (thanks to AMA brainwashing, which is apparently very successful). Interesting that you don't count blacks as Americans. Quote interesting strawmen there. And sorry, you can't dismiss away the problems of drug abuse in pregnant mothers. Not if you're going to make a big noise over 6 in 1000 versus 4 in 1000. 6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. So you think it OK that the US has 50% worse infant mortality than other western countries, and that it indicates that our system is just fine?If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #44 May 3, 2006 >Is there doubt on it? Well, yes. It likely has a similar effect on humans, but our metabolism is not the same as a rat's. It is likely for two reasons: 1. A lot of americans are currently eating themselves to death; restricting them to, say, 1000 calories a day will result in healthier americans just from an obesity standpoint. 2. Reducing metabolic rates reduces some of the wear (telomere erosion, for example) that accumulates over time. But again, that's likely, not proven. And it may not be valid on healthy people who already eat less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #45 May 3, 2006 Quote 6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. So you think it OK that the US has 50% worse infant mortality than other western countries, and that it indicates that our system is just fine? sheesh - read and comment, will ya? I said that the differences are less than claimed, and that there are issues in America that are not endemic to our method of health care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #46 May 3, 2006 Quote6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. wrong - with a sample size of only 1000, you can't say that 6 and 4 are meaningfullly different considering normal variation. Hint - to say they are meaningfully different, the confidence interval of the difference can't contain zero. This means that if you took another 1000 samples, the results might be reversed, the same, or even 4 vs 6 again, or otherwise..... "Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 4 1000 0.004000 2 6 1000 0.006000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: -0.002 95% CI for difference: (-0.00818181, 0.00418181) Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -0.63 P-Value = 0.526" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #47 May 4, 2006 QuoteQuote6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. wrong - with a sample size of only 1000, you can't say that 6 and 4 are meaningfullly different considering normal variation. Hint - to say they are meaningfully different, the confidence interval of the difference can't contain zero. This means that if you took another 1000 samples, the results might be reversed, the same, or even 4 vs 6 again, or otherwise..... "Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 4 1000 0.004000 2 6 1000 0.006000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: -0.002 95% CI for difference: (-0.00818181, 0.00418181) Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -0.63 P-Value = 0.526" Umm - the sample size is millions of births. The 4 or 6 in 1000 is the RATE of infant mortality. Your abject groveling apology will be accepted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites penniless 0 #48 May 4, 2006 QuoteQuote 6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. So you think it OK that the US has 50% worse infant mortality than other western countries, and that it indicates that our system is just fine? sheesh - read and comment, will ya? I said that the differences are less than claimed, and that there are issues in America that are not endemic to our method of health care. I think 50% higher death rate is a big difference. I also said the US only looks good by comparison with 3rd world countries. So which western nation looks worse than the US? Even Cuba is better than the US. My claim is accurate, infant mortality in the US is shameful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #49 May 4, 2006 Quote[ I think 50% higher death rate is a big difference. I also said the US only looks good by comparison with 3rd world countries. So which western nation looks worse than the US? Even Cuba is better than the US. My claim is accurate, infant mortality in the US is shameful. I'll repeat: "Comparing statistics for IMR across countries can be a useful indicator of their level of health and development, but the method for calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." I believe there is still a gap between the US and the best, but it's still in the front pack, and the differences are not about the health care system. If this were a race, the country is in the front pack, just at the back. It's performance is still better than one tenth the global average. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lindsey 0 #50 May 4, 2006 I think it's clear that there are problems with our system in the US. To turn a blind eye to the fact that there are problems isn't smart if we want to fix what IS broken. But I don't think there's a single easy answer.... There's definitely a problem with access to health care. Cost is definitely part of the issue, but it's not the whole problem. Infant mortality. I honestly believe that this is much more a social issue than medical, for a number of reasons. If you look at our impoverished areas, you'll find very unhealthy conditions and people who are distrustful of the health care establishment, and only access it when absolutely necessary, and sometimes not then. Children who live in poverty do have access through Medicaid, which is better in some states than others. Infant mortality, as well as morbidity/mortality of the general population, is much higher in this subset of society than in more affluent groups. Lack of access due to the cost of healthcare tends to affect the people who work hard, but don't earn enough money to afford insurance or who work in jobs that don't offer health insurance as a benefit. These are people who often desire quality medical care but are unable to pay out of pocket. They'll usually pay for doctor visits, but then can't afford medications that would save them more serious health problems down the road. In this group, children still (at least in Arkansas) do have pretty good access through social programs that provide insurance to them. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 2 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,120 #44 May 3, 2006 >Is there doubt on it? Well, yes. It likely has a similar effect on humans, but our metabolism is not the same as a rat's. It is likely for two reasons: 1. A lot of americans are currently eating themselves to death; restricting them to, say, 1000 calories a day will result in healthier americans just from an obesity standpoint. 2. Reducing metabolic rates reduces some of the wear (telomere erosion, for example) that accumulates over time. But again, that's likely, not proven. And it may not be valid on healthy people who already eat less. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #45 May 3, 2006 Quote 6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. So you think it OK that the US has 50% worse infant mortality than other western countries, and that it indicates that our system is just fine? sheesh - read and comment, will ya? I said that the differences are less than claimed, and that there are issues in America that are not endemic to our method of health care. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 May 3, 2006 Quote6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. wrong - with a sample size of only 1000, you can't say that 6 and 4 are meaningfullly different considering normal variation. Hint - to say they are meaningfully different, the confidence interval of the difference can't contain zero. This means that if you took another 1000 samples, the results might be reversed, the same, or even 4 vs 6 again, or otherwise..... "Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 4 1000 0.004000 2 6 1000 0.006000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: -0.002 95% CI for difference: (-0.00818181, 0.00418181) Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -0.63 P-Value = 0.526" ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #47 May 4, 2006 QuoteQuote6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. wrong - with a sample size of only 1000, you can't say that 6 and 4 are meaningfullly different considering normal variation. Hint - to say they are meaningfully different, the confidence interval of the difference can't contain zero. This means that if you took another 1000 samples, the results might be reversed, the same, or even 4 vs 6 again, or otherwise..... "Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help. Test and CI for Two Proportions Sample X N Sample p 1 4 1000 0.004000 2 6 1000 0.006000 Difference = p (1) - p (2) Estimate for difference: -0.002 95% CI for difference: (-0.00818181, 0.00418181) Test for difference = 0 (vs not = 0): Z = -0.63 P-Value = 0.526" Umm - the sample size is millions of births. The 4 or 6 in 1000 is the RATE of infant mortality. Your abject groveling apology will be accepted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #48 May 4, 2006 QuoteQuote 6/1000 is 50% more than 4/1000. So you think it OK that the US has 50% worse infant mortality than other western countries, and that it indicates that our system is just fine? sheesh - read and comment, will ya? I said that the differences are less than claimed, and that there are issues in America that are not endemic to our method of health care. I think 50% higher death rate is a big difference. I also said the US only looks good by comparison with 3rd world countries. So which western nation looks worse than the US? Even Cuba is better than the US. My claim is accurate, infant mortality in the US is shameful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #49 May 4, 2006 Quote[ I think 50% higher death rate is a big difference. I also said the US only looks good by comparison with 3rd world countries. So which western nation looks worse than the US? Even Cuba is better than the US. My claim is accurate, infant mortality in the US is shameful. I'll repeat: "Comparing statistics for IMR across countries can be a useful indicator of their level of health and development, but the method for calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality." I believe there is still a gap between the US and the best, but it's still in the front pack, and the differences are not about the health care system. If this were a race, the country is in the front pack, just at the back. It's performance is still better than one tenth the global average. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #50 May 4, 2006 I think it's clear that there are problems with our system in the US. To turn a blind eye to the fact that there are problems isn't smart if we want to fix what IS broken. But I don't think there's a single easy answer.... There's definitely a problem with access to health care. Cost is definitely part of the issue, but it's not the whole problem. Infant mortality. I honestly believe that this is much more a social issue than medical, for a number of reasons. If you look at our impoverished areas, you'll find very unhealthy conditions and people who are distrustful of the health care establishment, and only access it when absolutely necessary, and sometimes not then. Children who live in poverty do have access through Medicaid, which is better in some states than others. Infant mortality, as well as morbidity/mortality of the general population, is much higher in this subset of society than in more affluent groups. Lack of access due to the cost of healthcare tends to affect the people who work hard, but don't earn enough money to afford insurance or who work in jobs that don't offer health insurance as a benefit. These are people who often desire quality medical care but are unable to pay out of pocket. They'll usually pay for doctor visits, but then can't afford medications that would save them more serious health problems down the road. In this group, children still (at least in Arkansas) do have pretty good access through social programs that provide insurance to them. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
